A Question I Wrestle With At Night

As someone who has long been interested in ways to address
the massive global disparity in economic wellbeing – nearly 1 billion people live onless than $1.90 a day, adjusted for purchasing power – I’ve struggled with the
question of how to do this while avoiding the historical tendency of Westerners
to use alleged afflictions as an excuse to control others.

This tendency is a favorite jab by aid critics: the most
notable critic of development aid, economist Bill Easterly, titled his most
famous book The White Man’s Burden. It’s a worry worth thinking about, seeing
as some forms of aid today, notably food aid, sometimes do advantage rich countries at the expense of poor ones.

There are a number of facets to this problem. For now, I
want to deal with the micro-level question of whether and how poverty (which is
actually a pretty difficult term to define) is an affliction.

Now on some level questioning whether poverty is bad (and
how bad) may sound silly, and the issue is not poverty exactly: it’s how
addressing poverty changes and to some degree may destroy a culture with many positive things to offer. Many of
the pictures charities give us in the West are focused on devastation: the
starvation, the grueling labor necessary to lift one’s fortunes, the struggle
with illness. When I have stayed in developing countries, I’ve been struck by
the pictures that don’t get through: the festive camaraderie of a first
birthday, children playing football outside (something increasingly rare in
developed countries), the bustling markets filled with fresh fruits, veggies,
and street food.

Beyond that, there’s simply the fact that the culture in
Ghana or Peru, especially the poorer parts that I’m familiar with, is vitally
different from that in the United States. Though I may be biased, I think
there’s more diversity of culture in the Global South than in higher-income
countries, even considering richer Asian countries. Part of this is just the
fact that development hastens globalization and also tends to involve Westernization,
but it also speaks to a more inherent issue in development: the material
capabilities you rely on shape what you do – they shape your culture. There’s
no way alleviating poverty will happen without some loss of culture, a loss that may include far more than just aesthetic pleasures (though to
be clear, it comes with gains as well).

Now I’m not one to say that we should let people suffer
simply in order to preserve some culture. It seems paternalistic and
fetishistic to say we will let someone be mired in poverty because of how cute
their life is. The question for me is: are people really suffering, how badly, and
will they genuinely be better off if Ghana becomes more like the U.S.? The
question is not a moot one: if you came here (I did not, but I imagine some do)
expecting to see people moaning in pain left and right in the streets like the
way Uganda is portrayed in the Book of Mormon you would be surprised. My
impression is that you see more happy faces here than on the streets of New
York (perhaps not than San Francisco though).

Enough of how great things are here, though: there is
suffering, but it’s suffering that’s nowhere near as constant and visible as
we’re often led to believe it is. Surveys do show that poverty takes a dramatic
toll on how happy people are with their lives. Were this in the context of a
single country, you might think it was just a question of envy and despair at rich
neighbors. These studies, though, compare different countries, and indeed
poverty seems to hurt (after a certain level of wealth, though, money seems to
stop mattering much).

So how does this happen even while you don’t see people so
miserable when they walk around? Are people just hiding it? That actually may
be part of it, but I don’t think it’s the key explanation. In fact, the issue
seems to be that while poverty does not make people sad minute to minute, it
leads to far more frequent and stressful obstacles (one aspect of this is described in Portfolios of the Poor).

A common illness can be crippling and impossible to treat
with the money one has. A child is far more likely to die. The weather takes a
regular toll on one’s business.

In the context of Ghana, I am a very rich man but I see bits
and pieces of this – even in the second-biggest city in the country, the power
and water are very inconsistent. In more rural areas, it’s often more common
than not that there is no power. Built structures are much more affected by the
weather.

So while most of the time I don’t notice the difference –
while sitting at my computer under a fan I don’t constantly think “I’m in a
developing country!” – there are frequent moments of stress, moments that are
far more common and intense for people who are not rich here.

These occasionally stressful events do not just affect the
moments where they happen. As Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir explain in
their book Scarcity, moments like
this frame the way you live. You have to constantly act around
the lack of available water by using your water very strategically when it’s
available, making interactions around water just a tad more stressful than they
would be if it were available. These shifts in framing have profound effects.

People here want to not get malaria. They want their
children to go to school more. They want more productive crops. As I’ll flesh
out more in a future post, I think it’s best for those from other countries to
support these basic capabilities and avoid more substantial cultural change in
the hopes that we can end poverty without making the world too homogeneous.

This probably makes poverty within a rich country more
similar to poverty in a poor country than we might otherwise think. The poorer
members of rich countries face a wide variety of additional constraints that can create different
conditions of scarcity.That’s not
to say that global poverty isn’t still particularly severe – no question, it is
– but it’s not severe in the ways we often think it is.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NOTE: I would like to clarify that the post below and the published paper show that a result from 1995 does not hold, but they do NOT make the case for the 1995 model being correct. There are many reasons the models in both papers are likely to be deeply flawed: path dependency, dynamic ecosystems, philosophical problems with the definition of suffering and enjoyment, and so on. The primary point here is to treat the 1995 result and other work on wild animal suffering with caution.

In 1995, Yew-Kwang Ng wrote a groundbreaking paper, "Towards welfare biology: Evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering" that explored the novel question of the wellbeing of wild animals as distinct from the conservation of species. As perceptive as it was innovative, the paper proposed a number of axioms about evolution and consciousness to study which animals are sentient, what their experiences are, and what might be done about it.

The past year I was a senior research analyst at Northwestern University's Global Poverty Research Lab on a study of evidence-based policy. Specifically, our goal was to work on a question often on researchers' minds: how can I get my ideas acted upon?

To do this, I dug through a number of bodies of evidence on how science influences policy. One area I looked at is what is called "implementation science" in medicine, which looks at how to get doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators to adopt evidence-based practice. Another was a series of papers by social scientist Carol Weiss and her students on how policymakers in government agencies claim to use evidence. There is also a small literature on how to implement evidence-based policy in public schools, and a little work on policymaker numeracy. I've included a bibliography below that should be helpful for anyone interested in this topic.

Most of my year was spent on delving into attempts to scale up specific pol…

Effective altruism is now spending a great deal of time on improving prospects for the future. This is chiefly by avoiding extinction risks, but there are other strategies as well, e.g. moral circle expansion. In any case changing institutions looks like a promising strategy, either to spread moral consideration for animals and future people. What are the longest-lasting institutions in the world? Certainly high among them is religion. For this reason, it seems to me that influencing religion, particularly old religions with a tendency to grow, is a highly-neglected strategy for improving the world. I've seen posts in effective altruism (e.g. this one) about outreach to religious groups, but I always saw them as a sort of diversity and inclusivity message: to grow a movement, you need to welcome all sorts of people. It's important to welcome and include people, of course, but this seems to be dramatically underselling the importance of religion. The Catholic Church is around 20…

I am a PhD student in economics at Stanford University and a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow. I am interested in global priorities research—research on the most effective ways to do good with limited resources—and a Global Priorities Fellow with the Forethought Foundation. I am an advocate and a follower of the effective altruism movement (www.effective-altruism.com). I was previously a Senior Research Analyst at the Global Poverty Research Lab at Northwestern University's Buffett Institute, where I studied the implementation of evidence-based policies in education and criminal justice. I am also the chair of the Animal Advocacy Research Fund Oversight Committee, which distributes roughly $300,000 annually to fund research on effective advocacy for animals.
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/zdgroff.